10 story hole in WTC 7 - Part II

[nicepants]

The videos of the implosion of WTC 7 are evidence of CD.

Argument from personal belief

The fact that WTC 7 fell at free fall for 105 feet is proof of CD. This could not happen in a progressive collapse.

Argument from personal belief

The molten metal and the corroded beam are evidence of thermite. There is no other known explanation for their existence

That would be true if the only way to melt metal was thermite.

Thanks, c7, for a very honest, and interesting glimpse into the mind of a truther.

We agree that the smoldering carbon fuel kept the molten metal molten but you have no explanation for what melted the steel.

So you agree these fires were hot enough to keep the metal molten, but at the same time you claim that they were not hot enough to melt it?

 

[Christopher7]

It's interesting how you claim that thermite is the only explanation of something that has never happened before. The only way you can state that thermite is the only explanation it to provide proof that thermite could cause the phenomenon.

Thermite burns at 4500[FONT=&quot]°[/FONT]F. It will melt steel.

 

[beachnut]

You are trying to imply that the colors are way off. Give it up. The color change in Glenn's photos is not that severe. Only the brightness has changed significantly.
The first photo is obviously not set properly. It doesn't look real.


The photo of the glob in the crab claw is clear. The light setting is correct.

No dripping metal, just sparks, looks like a piece of plywood shedding sparks. What does this mean for 911, you know thermite cools off real quick because the reaction takes place fast and it is done, no more heat! So it can’t be thermite because it does not last but minutes. So Thermite is out, now you have to use old fashion office contents burned and kept the pile hot. I have my woodstove going right now and I starve the oxygen to get 1400 degrees for hours. So wood burns and stays hot for hours, but thermite is done in minutes.

No dripping metal there.

Jones’ nut case idea of men putting thermite in the WTC complex is complete insanity. He made it up four years after 911.

 

[Bobby]

The color proves that it could only be steel or iron.

No, aluminum would be a liquid at those temperatures.

Maybe the color chart shows that if it were iron/steel then the temps would be in the 2000 F range, maybe. Aren't there similar charts for other metals? What temps do the colors correspond to for Nickel, Zinc, Copper, &c?

So there's something dripping, which means the something is liquid, but it can't be aluminum because aluminum would be liquid? Huh? What am I missing?

 

[Christopher7]

The videos of the implosion of WTC 7 are evidence of CD.

Argument from personal belief

True

The fact that WTC 7 fell at free fall for 105 feet is proof of CD. This could not happen in a progressive collapse.

Argument from personal belief

False.

The progressive collapse NIST proposes is a continuous series of failures over a period of seconds. I order for WTC 7 to fall at free fall, all the supporting columns must fail at the same time.

That would be true if the only way to melt metal was thermite.

The only way to melt a steel beam or large quantities of steel is in a foundry or thermite.

So you agree these fires were hot enough to keep the metal molten, but at the same time you claim that they were not hot enough to melt it?

Correct
The smoldering fires in the debris pile [1200[FONT=&quot]°[/FONT]F +or-] were much lower than the melting point of steel [2700[FONT=&quot]°[/FONT]F] but they still slowed the cooling of the molten metal.

 

[funk de fino]

Lets try and get C7 back on track here.

Originally Posted by Christopher7
No, it was a logical deduction. Read the whole document. He was at the SW corner. He was describing what was happening at the SW corner. He could not see the NE corner.

Its an assumtion whether you like it or not. Please provide proof or retract the claim. You could contact him.

Please remember the vents to the roof also.

Originally Posted by C7
Non answer. The beam corrosion FEMA said should be further investigated but NIST did not mention.The only known possibility for this phenomenon is thermite. Molten iron is the byproduct of thermite. There is no other known explanation for the molten metal found under all three buildings.

false, NIST mention the other beam that was similar but was from the towers

 

[Sunstealer]

Thermite simply cannot be the explanation for the observed photo because the thermite reaction shows that the energy released is not sufficient to cause long term heating of a material. The thermite reaction requires an initial heat input sufficient to cause the reaction and the reaction occurs very quickly subsequently producing molten Iron (Fe). It simply would not be able to sustain such temperatures in the rubble pile. The whole point of thermite is to burn rapidly thereby ensuring maximum heat applied to whatever is to be melted. Once the reaction occurs then heat transfer (by whatever means) takes place. Thermite is a bit like a solid rocket fuel - light it and it goes off - there is no way of controlling it, it either "burns" or it doesn't - one that reaction is over then that's it.

There is absolutely no way that thermite can continue to be a source of heat (in the pile) once it has been ignited simply because there is a time constraint. Thermite goes poof - either the poof happens or it doesn't. If it happens then the thermite is used up. It's such a silly notion otherwise - it's unbelievable.

I've been trying to get truthers to work out the amount of thermite used, the amount of steel that this would melt and therefore the subsequent amount of remaining liquid Iron (Fe) from the thermite reaction and the amount of structural steel melted.

Secondly I've been trying to get them to understand/produce a time for 1Kg of Iron to cool from liquidus to solid at room temperature. They cannot even attempt a basic calculation let alone give a respectable figure. I'd give massive credit for the attempt, right or wrong.

The fact remains that any product of the thermite reaction i.e. molten Iron (Fe) and the subsequent melting of structural steel would not produce liquid material in such a quantity that truthers claim. It just isn't chemically or physically possible.

 

[nicepants]

The progressive collapse NIST proposes is a continuous series of failures over a period of seconds. I order for WTC 7 to fall at free fall, all the supporting columns must fail at the same time.

Do you have a source for this claim?

The only way to melt a steel beam or large quantities of steel is in a foundry or thermite.

Another argument from personal belief. Steel isn't limited to melting in these 2 situations, it will melt anytime its temperature is raised above it's melting point. Ever heard of welding?

Correct
The smoldering fires in the debris pile [1200[FONT=&quot]°[/FONT]F +or-] were much lower than the melting point of steel

Your claim was that these fires 'kept the steel molten'? If the temperature of these fires were BELOW than the melting point of the steel, they wouldn't have been able to do so.

[2700[FONT=&quot]°[/FONT]F] but they still slowed the cooling of the molten metal.

[/quote]

At what point did this metal become molten? When was it first observed? What is the approximate quantity of molten steel/iron? Why are there no reports of molten lead, aluminum, or copper...metals which were present in the towers and have lower melting points than iron or steel?

 

[Baylor]

The fact that WTC 7 fell at free fall for 105 feet is proof of CD. This could not happen in a progressive collapse.

For the last time, A CONTROLLED DEMOLITION IS A PROGRESSIVE COLLAPSE. So what you just said is, the collapse of WTC 7 could not have been a controlled demolition.

The implosion contractor creates a progressive collapse by releasing this energy through the sequential explosive removal of key structural supports, allowing gravity to do the remaining work, simultaneously using the minimum amount of explosives, creating the maximum amount of fragmentation, and minimizing the potential fly of debris.

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=18285854

9/11 truth. Self-debunking since 9/11.

 

[beachnut]

The only way to melt a steel beam or large quantities of steel is in a ... or thermite.

The smoldering fires in the debris pile [1200[FONT=&quot]°[/FONT]F +or-] were much lower than the melting point of steel [2700[FONT=&quot]°[/FONT]F] but they still slowed the cooling of the molten metal.

lol

Gage says the same garbage.

 

[Christopher7]

Thermite simply cannot be the explanation for the observed photo because the thermite reaction shows that the energy released is not sufficient to cause long term heating of a material.

Something other than thermite kept the molten metal hot enough to remain molten. That much we agree on. The only possibility is smoldering debris.


Thermite is the only known possible cause for the molten metal in the first place.

 

[bje]

Something other than thermite kept the molten metal hot enough to remain molten. That much we agree on. The only possibility is smoldering debris.


Thermite is the only known possible cause for the molten metal in the first place.

How so?

 

[Christopher7]

The progressive collapse NIST proposes is a continuous series of failures over a period of seconds. I order for WTC 7 to fall at free fall, all the supporting columns must fail at the same time.

Do you have a source for this claim?

In order for something to fall at free fall it must encounter NO resistance. All the supporting columns had to be removed on 8 floors for free fall to occur.

The only way to melt a steel beam or large quantities of steel is in a foundry or thermite.

Another argument from personal belief. Steel isn't limited to melting in these 2 situations, it will melt anytime its temperature is raised above it's melting point. Ever heard of welding?

Welding/cutting only melts steel long enough to weld or cut then it immediately solidifies again.

Your claim was that these fires 'kept the steel molten'? If the temperature of these fires were BELOW than the melting point of the steel, they wouldn't have been able to do so.

The smoldering fires did in fact keep the metal molten for many weeks.

At what point did this metal become molten? When was it first observed?

What is the approximate quantity of molten steel/iron?

Not known.

Why are there no reports of molten lead, aluminum, or copper...metals which were present in the towers and have lower melting points than iron or steel?

The aluminum cladding was ejected in all directions and spread out over a huge area. WTC 7 did not have appreciable amounts of aluminum. Copper and lead were present but not in concentration. They were spread throughout the rubble. Steel is the only metal that could account for account for molten metal under all three buildings.
The molten metal in this photo is in the 2100-2500[FONT=&quot]°[/FONT]F + range.
Aluminum, copper and lead would be liquid at those temperatures.

 

[Christopher7]

For the last time, A CONTROLLED DEMOLITION IS A PROGRESSIVE COLLAPSE. So what you just said is, the collapse of WTC 7 could not have been a controlled demolition.

If there is a way to misinterpret something, you guys will. I was referring to the progressive collapse proposed by NIST.

 

[dtugg]

Chris, you don't even know what molten means.

 

[Christopher7]

beachnut and bje,

Provide another possibility or accept the fact that thermite is the only known cause of the molten metal.

 

[Christopher7]

Chris, you don't even know what molten means.

I know what it means, do you? If not, look it up.

 

[funk de fino]

beachnut and bje,

Provide another possibility or accept the fact that thermite is the only known cause of the molten metal.

Back on topic or you are reported.

I know it is convenient for you to ignore questions about the engineers who reports fires below floor 7.

 

[dtugg]

I know what it means, do you? If not, look it up.

I know what it means. It is quite evident that you have no idea.

 

[Baylor]

If there is a way to misinterpret something, you guys will. I was referring to the progressive collapse proposed by NIST.

Originally Posted by Christopher7
The fact that WTC 7 fell at free fall for 105 feet is proof of CD. This could not happen in a progressive collapse.

You were referring to progressive collapses in general. That's why you used the indefinite article, then tried to switch. Epic fail.

Nice you admit it was a progressive collapse though. Go tell Gage and the rest of ae911truth. They have collapse in irony quotes. That always baffled me.